Persian
Language
Geographical Research is Published in Persian Fulltext.
Volume 39, Issue 2 (2024)
GeoRes 2024, 39(2): 169-175 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2024/03/5 | Accepted: 2024/04/17 | Published: 2024/04/30
Received: 2024/03/5 | Accepted: 2024/04/17 | Published: 2024/04/30
How to cite this article
Shirin Sokhan A, Shakur A, Joodaki H. Urban Livability Indicators in the Historical Context of Kermanshah. GeoRes 2024; 39 (2) :169-175
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1596-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1596-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
1- Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Qeshm International Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qeshm, Iran
2- Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Marvdasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Marvdasht, Iran
3- Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Islamshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Islamshahr, Iran
2- Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Marvdasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Marvdasht, Iran
3- Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Islamshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Islamshahr, Iran
Full-Text (HTML) (17 Views)
Background
Rapid urban transformations and the deterioration of old urban fabrics have highlighted the need to reassess urban quality of life. The concept of urban livability, introduced in the 1970s, emphasizes creating favorable living environments through social, economic, physical, and environmental dimensions. Historical urban areas in Iran, such as the central district of Kermanshah, have undergone structural and managerial changes and now require reevaluation based on livability indicators.
Previous Studies
The concept of urban livability has been discussed in urban planning literature since the 1970s, initially introduced to guide planning ideals [Larice, 2005]. The term gained attention through publications in European architecture journals in 1975 and was institutionalized by international livability conferences starting in 1985. The notion expanded in the 1980s with the introduction of "livable streets" and the identification of key urban goals, including livability [Bandarabad, 2011]. Livability has since been recognized as a complex and multidimensional concept involving environmental, physical, economic, and social aspects [Irandoost et al., 2016]. Numerous studies have explored its indicators, though many frameworks remain non-spatial and are applied at broad city-wide scales [Valcárcel-Aguiar & Murias, 2019; Higgs et al., 2021; Harrell, 2017; Martino et al., 2021; Chi & Mak, 2021; Gómez-Varo et al., 2022]. In recent decades, research has emphasized the importance of livability amid global urbanization and ecosystem challenges [McPhearson et al., 2021; Ruth & Franklin, 2014].
Aim(s)
The aim of this study was to examine the indicators and components of urban livability within the historical fabric of Kermanshah city.
Research Type
This study was applied in nature.
Research Society, Place and Time
The research was conducted in 2023 (1402 in the Iranian calendar) in the historical fabric of Kermanshah city, located in western Iran. The study area spans approximately 340 hectares and includes the city’s old neighborhoods and marketplaces. The research population consisted of all residents of Kermanshah’s historical district
Sampling Method and Number
The study employed a two-stage sampling approach. First, a purposive sampling method was used to select 32 urban planning experts based on specific criteria (education above a bachelor’s degree, professional experience in urban planning, and residency in Kermanshah). Second, a sample of 378 residents from the historical district of Kermanshah was selected to represent the general population within the study area.
Used Devices & Materials
identified urban livability indicators. After content validation and expert review, the questionnaire was refined to 32 items. A four-point Likert scale (very desirable, desirable, undesirable, very undesirable) was used for responses. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS software (version 27.0.1), applying the t-test for statistical evaluation and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for prioritizing key criteria.
Findings by Text
The study identified five key indicators affecting urban livability in the historical fabric of Kermanshah: socio-cultural, economic, managerial, physical, and environmental. These were extracted through questionnaire analysis and statistically examined using the t-test (Table 1). Among the 13 socio-cultural sub-indicators, residents’ sense of belonging, access to cultural services, and social cohesion were rated positively. In the economic domain, only access to shopping centers was rated positively; most others, including income opportunities, were rated poorly. In the managerial domain, indicators such as integrated institutional management and citizen participation in renewal processes were evaluated as the least favorable. The physical indicator showed relatively better results, especially the presence of identity elements in the urban fabric. All environmental sub-indicators were assessed positively.
Table 1. Results of t-test analysis of indicators and components affecting urban livability
Overall, based on t-test results (Table 2), the environmental domain had the highest desirability, followed by physical, managerial, economic, and socio-cultural indicators.
Table 2. Results of the t-test for the evaluated indicators
Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), indicator prioritization showed the economic domain had the highest relative weight (0.801), while the managerial domain had the lowest (0.501) (Table 3). A consistency ratio was calculated to ensure the reliability of the priority weights.
Table 3. Weighting of the evaluated indicators
Main Comparisons to Similar Studies
The findings of this study align with Shabatura et al. (2018), emphasizing that urban environments influence not only economic but also ideological dimensions such as social well-being, attitudes, and cultural behaviors. Similarly, Ouyang et al. (2017) have highlighted the importance of access to urban services, sustainable housing, and transport infrastructure in improving livability. The economic factor, shown as critical in Kermanshah, is echoed by Sofeska (2017), who asserts that economic development enhances urban livability. However, contrasting views exist. Chatterjee et al. (2020) argue that economic growth may reduce satisfaction due to urban sprawl and pressure on infrastructure. Further, Evans (2002) and Faria et al. (2018) have found out that ecological and employment environments can outweigh economic development in enhancing livability. Regarding the physical dimension, Mahmoudi et al. (2015) and Kotus & Rzeszewski (2013) have emphasized that physical urban decay leads to social issues. Lastly, Lee (2021), Kyttä et al. (2016), Dragin et al. (2016), and Yi et al. (2021) underscored the essential role of environmental quality in fostering urban vitality and regional livability.
Suggestions
It is recommended that similar studies be conducted in the historical contexts of other regions.
Conclusion
The environmental component demonstrates a relatively favorable status in terms of livability within the historical fabric of Kermanshah, whereas the physical component shows an average condition. In contrast, the socio-cultural, economic, and managerial components are in an unfavorable state. Among these, the economic indicator holds the highest level of importance, while the managerial indicator is considered the least important.
Acknowledgments: None reported by the authors.
Ethical Permission: None reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: None reported by the authors.
Authors’ Contributions: Shirin Sokhan A (First author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer/ Methodologist (35%); Shakur A (Second author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (25%); Joodaki HR (Third author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (25%).
Funding: None reported by the authors.
Rapid urban transformations and the deterioration of old urban fabrics have highlighted the need to reassess urban quality of life. The concept of urban livability, introduced in the 1970s, emphasizes creating favorable living environments through social, economic, physical, and environmental dimensions. Historical urban areas in Iran, such as the central district of Kermanshah, have undergone structural and managerial changes and now require reevaluation based on livability indicators.
Previous Studies
The concept of urban livability has been discussed in urban planning literature since the 1970s, initially introduced to guide planning ideals [Larice, 2005]. The term gained attention through publications in European architecture journals in 1975 and was institutionalized by international livability conferences starting in 1985. The notion expanded in the 1980s with the introduction of "livable streets" and the identification of key urban goals, including livability [Bandarabad, 2011]. Livability has since been recognized as a complex and multidimensional concept involving environmental, physical, economic, and social aspects [Irandoost et al., 2016]. Numerous studies have explored its indicators, though many frameworks remain non-spatial and are applied at broad city-wide scales [Valcárcel-Aguiar & Murias, 2019; Higgs et al., 2021; Harrell, 2017; Martino et al., 2021; Chi & Mak, 2021; Gómez-Varo et al., 2022]. In recent decades, research has emphasized the importance of livability amid global urbanization and ecosystem challenges [McPhearson et al., 2021; Ruth & Franklin, 2014].
Aim(s)
The aim of this study was to examine the indicators and components of urban livability within the historical fabric of Kermanshah city.
Research Type
This study was applied in nature.
Research Society, Place and Time
The research was conducted in 2023 (1402 in the Iranian calendar) in the historical fabric of Kermanshah city, located in western Iran. The study area spans approximately 340 hectares and includes the city’s old neighborhoods and marketplaces. The research population consisted of all residents of Kermanshah’s historical district
Sampling Method and Number
The study employed a two-stage sampling approach. First, a purposive sampling method was used to select 32 urban planning experts based on specific criteria (education above a bachelor’s degree, professional experience in urban planning, and residency in Kermanshah). Second, a sample of 378 residents from the historical district of Kermanshah was selected to represent the general population within the study area.
Used Devices & Materials
identified urban livability indicators. After content validation and expert review, the questionnaire was refined to 32 items. A four-point Likert scale (very desirable, desirable, undesirable, very undesirable) was used for responses. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS software (version 27.0.1), applying the t-test for statistical evaluation and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for prioritizing key criteria.
Findings by Text
The study identified five key indicators affecting urban livability in the historical fabric of Kermanshah: socio-cultural, economic, managerial, physical, and environmental. These were extracted through questionnaire analysis and statistically examined using the t-test (Table 1). Among the 13 socio-cultural sub-indicators, residents’ sense of belonging, access to cultural services, and social cohesion were rated positively. In the economic domain, only access to shopping centers was rated positively; most others, including income opportunities, were rated poorly. In the managerial domain, indicators such as integrated institutional management and citizen participation in renewal processes were evaluated as the least favorable. The physical indicator showed relatively better results, especially the presence of identity elements in the urban fabric. All environmental sub-indicators were assessed positively.
Table 1. Results of t-test analysis of indicators and components affecting urban livability
Overall, based on t-test results (Table 2), the environmental domain had the highest desirability, followed by physical, managerial, economic, and socio-cultural indicators.
Table 2. Results of the t-test for the evaluated indicators
Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), indicator prioritization showed the economic domain had the highest relative weight (0.801), while the managerial domain had the lowest (0.501) (Table 3). A consistency ratio was calculated to ensure the reliability of the priority weights.
Table 3. Weighting of the evaluated indicators
Main Comparisons to Similar Studies
The findings of this study align with Shabatura et al. (2018), emphasizing that urban environments influence not only economic but also ideological dimensions such as social well-being, attitudes, and cultural behaviors. Similarly, Ouyang et al. (2017) have highlighted the importance of access to urban services, sustainable housing, and transport infrastructure in improving livability. The economic factor, shown as critical in Kermanshah, is echoed by Sofeska (2017), who asserts that economic development enhances urban livability. However, contrasting views exist. Chatterjee et al. (2020) argue that economic growth may reduce satisfaction due to urban sprawl and pressure on infrastructure. Further, Evans (2002) and Faria et al. (2018) have found out that ecological and employment environments can outweigh economic development in enhancing livability. Regarding the physical dimension, Mahmoudi et al. (2015) and Kotus & Rzeszewski (2013) have emphasized that physical urban decay leads to social issues. Lastly, Lee (2021), Kyttä et al. (2016), Dragin et al. (2016), and Yi et al. (2021) underscored the essential role of environmental quality in fostering urban vitality and regional livability.
Suggestions
It is recommended that similar studies be conducted in the historical contexts of other regions.
Conclusion
The environmental component demonstrates a relatively favorable status in terms of livability within the historical fabric of Kermanshah, whereas the physical component shows an average condition. In contrast, the socio-cultural, economic, and managerial components are in an unfavorable state. Among these, the economic indicator holds the highest level of importance, while the managerial indicator is considered the least important.
Acknowledgments: None reported by the authors.
Ethical Permission: None reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: None reported by the authors.
Authors’ Contributions: Shirin Sokhan A (First author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer/ Methodologist (35%); Shakur A (Second author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (25%); Joodaki HR (Third author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (25%).
Funding: None reported by the authors.
Keywords:
References
1. Bandarabad A (2011). The livable city from theory to the meanings. Tehran: Azarakhsh Publications. [Persian] [Link]
2. Chatterjee K, Chng S, Clark B, Davis A, De Vos J, Ettema D, et al (2020). Commuting and wellbeing: A critical overview of the literature with implications for policy and future research. Transport Reviews. 40(1):5-34. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/01441647.2019.1649317]
3. Chi YL, Mak HWL (2021). From comparative and statistical assessments of liveability and health conditions of districts in Hong Kong towards future city development. Sustainability. 13(16):8781. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su13168781]
4. Dragin-Jensen C, Schnittka O, Arkil C (2016). More options do not always create perceived variety in life: Attracting new residents with quality-vs. quantity-oriented event portfolios. Cities. 56:55-62. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2016.03.004]
5. Evans P (2002). Introduction: Looking for agents of urban livability in a globalized political economy. In: Livable cities? Urban struggles for livelihood and sustainability. Oakland: Oxford University Press. p. 1-30. [Link] [DOI:10.1525/california/9780520230248.003.0001]
6. Faria PA, Ferreira FA, Jalali MS, Bento P, António NJ (2018). Combining cognitive mapping and MCDA for improving quality of life in urban areas. Cities. 78:116-127. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2018.02.006]
7. Giles-Corti B, Vernez-Moudon A, Reis R, Turrell G, Dannenberg A, Badland H, Foster S (2016). City planning and population health: A global challenge. Lancet. 388(10062):2912-2924. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30066-6]
8. Gómez-Varo I, Delclòs-Alió X, Miralles-Guasch C (2022). Jane Jacobs reloaded: A contemporary operationalization of urban vitality in a district in Barcelona. Cities. 123:103565. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2022.103565]
9. Habibi D (2014). A study of the factors effecting on the fall of joyfulness and viability sense in historical and timeworn textures (a case study: Sang Siyah district of Shiraz). Studies on Iranian Islamic City. (14):75-80. [Persian] [Link]
10. Harrell R (2017). AARP's livability index: A picture of how communities meet the needs of people of all ages. Innovation in Aging. 1(Suppl 1):959. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/geroni/igx004.3454]
11. Higgs C, Badland H, Simons K, Giles-Corti B (2021). Developing a flexible, high resolution, policy relevant index of urban liveability in Australia. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Health Policy Statistics. Charleston: RMIT University. [Link]
12. Irandoost K, Isalou AA, Shahmoradi B (2016). Livability index in urban environments (case study: The central part of the holy city of Qom). Journal of Urban Economics and Management. 4(13):101-118. [Persian] [Link]
13. Kiani A, Gholami Fardeghi H, Vahdati M (2012). Analyzing the livability of the neighborhood from the point of view of the network of urban planning actors (case study: Belorsazi neighborhood, Tehran). Research and Urban Planning. 3(11):59-72. [Persian] [Link]
14. Kotus J, Rzeszewski M (2013). Between disorder and livability. Case of one street in post-socialist city. Cities. 32:123-134. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2013.03.015]
15. Kyttä M, Broberg A, Haybatollahi M, Schmidt-Thomé K (2016). Urban happiness: Context-sensitive study of the social sustainability of urban settings. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science. 43(1):34-57. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/0265813515600121]
16. Larice MA (2005). Great neighborhoods: The livability and morphology high density neighborhoods in urban north America. Berkeley: University of California. [Link]
17. Lee KY (2021). Factors influencing urban livability in Seoul, Korea: Urban environmental satisfaction and neighborhood relations. Social Sciences. 10(4):138. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/socsci10040138]
18. Mahmoudi M, Ahmad F, Abbasi B (2015). Livable streets: The effects of physical problems on the quality and livability of Kuala Lumpur streets. Cities. 43:104-114. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2014.11.016]
19. Martino N, Girling CL, Lu Y (2021). Urban form and livability: Socioeconomic and built environment indicators. Buildings and Cities. 2(1):220-243. [Link] [DOI:10.5334/bc.82]
20. McPhearson T, Raymond CM, Gulsrud N, Albert C, Coles NA, Fagerholm N, et al (2021). Radical changes are needed for transformations to a good Anthropocene. NPJ Urban Sustainability. 1(1):1-13. [Link] [DOI:10.1038/s42949-021-00017-x]
21. Ouyang W, Wang B, Li T, Niu X (2017). Spatial deprivation of urban public services in migrant enclaves under the context of a rapidly urbanizing China: An evaluation based on suburban Shanghai. Cities. 60(B):436-445. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2016.06.004]
22. Rajaei A, Pour Ahmad A, Zarafshan M, Ghazi I (2023). Spatial analysis of liveability index in Yazd old and new texture by spatial sampling. Research and Urban Planning. [Persian] [Link]
23. Rezai Nadushan H, Fanni Z, Tavakolinia J (2023). Analysis of neighborhood livability from the point of view of the network of urban planning actors (case study: Bilorsazi neighborhood, Tehran). Sustainable Development of Geographical Environment. [Persian] [Link]
24. Ruth M, Franklin RS (2014). Livability for all? Conceptual limits and practical implications. Applied Geography. 49:18-23. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.09.018]
25. Shabatura L, Bauer N, Iatsevich O (2018). Socio-cultural problems of sustainable urban environment. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 463(2):022009. [Link] [DOI:10.1088/1757-899X/463/2/022009]
26. Short JR (2006). Urban theory: A critical assessment. London: Palgrave MacMillan. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-1-137-23320-2]
27. Sofeska E (2017). Understanding the livability in a city through smart solutions and urban planning toward developing sustainable livable future of the city of Skopje. Procedia Environmental Sciences. 37:442-453. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.proenv.2017.03.014]
28. Valcárcel-Aguiar B, Murias P (2019). Evaluation and management of urban liveability: A goal programming based composite indicator. Social Indicators Research. 142(2):689-712. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11205-018-1861-z]
29. Yi X, Jue W, Huan H (2021). Does economic development bring more livability? Evidence from Jiangsu Province, China. Journal of Cleaner Production. 293:126187. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126187]
30. Zayyri K, Hatami A, Mesbahi S, Ashori H (2019). Evaluating and analyzing livability dimensions and components in small towns regarding sustainable development: Bandar Deilam. Quarterly of Geography & Regional Planning. 9(36):569-586. [Persian] [Link]